SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe
My take on the flow of time is uniqueish. If there truly are zillions of everything in the past and future and present, where does the energy come from to maintain the zillions of futures before they happen? That is why it makes no sense to think time is actually manipulatable to take us into the past or future. Where does the energy come from to maintain the past and create the future a zillion times every femtosecond or at plank scale? That seems like an awful lot of wasted energy doesn't it, if time is actually snapshots that can be manipulated on a universal scale? NO going forward, except on paper and at speed but not enough energy to have pre-created future "frames" to pass time through. No going backwards because there is not energy to do it. Nobody addresses the energy needed to "run" a universe it seems in their little snap shot analogues. Calculate the energy required to maintain a femtosecond record of the future universe before they happen. You can't. Because it's an illusion based on a concept that we manipulate through the analogue of math. Trying to describe corporeal reality IS NOT the actual reality. It's an attempt to understand and explain using other mean than, say, holding Sol in your hands and studying it with magic machines. When the experiment data, understanding and manipulation of the corporeal object all line up? We get a real thing with real understanding and the control that comes with it. Electric generator for example. WE have those down pat! The "past" is only corporeal in objects that remain. A process can be run back and forward and are a description of a concept, not corporeal reality actually letting you hit rewind and fast forward in time. Beware the analogue taking the place of the real corporeal object in your understanding of a concept. And 4 dimensions is basic as the universe runs moment by moment because the energy needed can only by accessed in THE PRESENT. That is my notion anyway. That the past and future have no energy to maintain themselves and the present is the energy state. The conservation of energy means we live in a boring low state present with the energy required for only the present because the energy required to maintain a past or future in infinite. Space time is emerging because when something comes into existence it needs ROOM to be in. The more things that quantumly become? The more room those "things" needs so space is created as well as time because the thing is in the present.
Negative mass is closer to what dark energy is (even though the planck masses there are higher), a mass where (when it's angular quanta masses are bigger than the angular masses that surround it, it's a inverse angular quanta number growth replaced with larger singular quanta growth, this is also quantized growth because the singular mass must displace hbar angular lengths, instead of with regular mass growth by multiples (hbar*n) for mass energy density scaling, which in reality is a division of angular quanta (hbar*n is number of angular quanta radial density scaling (in reality it's a division), and hbar/n single angular quanta displacement of surrounding quanta by radial extent (is a increase of a single angular quantum size))). The single angular quanta circumference grows by displacement of the smaller more uniform quanta around it, instead of increasing angular quanta density with traditional mass scaling. (hbar/n) radius, or (hbar*n) radius, quantized power scaling of a angular quantum vortex or multiple divisions of them by radial displacement. Speed contracts with length by same proportion but doesn't effect time, time dilates with curvature degree quantum vortex alignment, which is a second order vector reflection resistance (effecting the speed more than the length, dilating the time rate of atomic clocks).
It doesn't matter if you endorse many worlds or not... We have observational proofs for this given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and the observations of our three-dimensional universe which is perceived as flat which means our three-dimensional universe potentiality is being stacked infinitely into a four-dimensional manifold biggest infinite amount of the previous dimension get stack in any size version of the next... I will say this a thousand times over if necessary but in order to create a theory of everything you must know the fundamental state of magnetism... If you don't know that magnetism is opposite spinning toroidal flows with one side spinning inward towards the center and one spinning outward in the opposite direction on the other side then you don't understand fundamental magnetism and if you don't understand magnetism at its most fundamental level then you can never create an accurate theory of Everything...
Again another major problem with our disconnect with quantum mechanics and general relativity is the fact that we live in a imperfect world and we have imperfect mathematical structures... With our current mathematical system we have pushed the problem of curvature in our mathematics out towards Infinity... If we follow the Terrence Howard style system and we follow my conversion functions that I made for this system then we can have a near-perfect mathematical structure that will help the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity... For instance if we do a plus one on the multiplication side and a minus one on the division side we maintain the same Fibonacci spiral and therefore we have a system that is in lockstep with our current mathematical system except for when approaching down towards zero the mathematical structures become non-linear and have an extreme curve our current mathematical structure pushes this problem out towards Infinity... Because of this we have a disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics... at the most fundamental level we have a mathematical problem that needs to be fixed before we can ever create any theory of Everything or any connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity... X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ this mathematical equation holds true because ² is a square function and a square is two-dimensional an infinite amount of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence so therefore X³ is always greater than infinite amounts of X² multiplied or however else because ³ is a cubed function and is three-dimensional with depth...
I think he fundamentally misunderstands time... What time is actually a spatial dimension and we have infinite amounts of three-dimensional universal potentiality branching and stacking on top of each other because ultimately if we were the highest spatial dimension in the third dimension then we would expect the relative state or shape of the universe to be round and this is not what we observed we observe a compressed or flat state or shape of the universe which means that our three-dimensional reality is stacking into a four-dimensional manifold and 4D is the time dimension but to us in the third dimension it seems like it can never move because it is only time but if we were in the fourth dimension it would be a physical dimension... We just can't observe it moving because we are three-dimensional...
Always love listening to your podcasts. I’m not a scientist, and I don’t understand much of what is discussed, but I get something out of these every time. I’m amazed at the intelligence of so many creative minds exploring their curiosities and moving humanity along in its evolution. I am filled with gratitude for the beauty of humanities quest for understanding. It’s beautiful!
I am stunned that he said that they detected the mirror being “pulled” instead of being pushed after a particle hit it, thus indicating a negative mass. 😳This is incredible.
@@hectorbacchus it’s insane that it pulls instead of pushing, how? I going to throw you a baseball but when it hits your glove the ball is going to pull the glove off your hand ? What? While at it let’s turn the universe inside out , why not
Negative Mass is Proof of My Theory of Super-Tension, so is a Lasers Shadow. It's Light that Generates Darkness or Outer-Spacetime not the other way around.
Doesn’t that make sense? When a particle hits a mirror, it can feel like the mirror is being “pulled” rather than pushed due to the way momentum transfer works. If the mirror is free to move, the impact of the particle can cause it to recoil. This happens because the particle’s momentum is transferred to the mirror, and since the mirror is reflecting the particle’s motion, the resulting force on the mirror acts in the opposite direction of the incoming particle’s momentum. What’s so groundbreaking?
@@Moedow ground breaking? Oh I don’t know negative mass maybe? Sure on paper doing math it’s perfectly ok to put a dash in front of a number but pick up a baseball with negative mass what the hell does that look and feel like ? And don’t be a ass and say well it’s just a ball that floats up
'Wave functions creating spacetime' had me floored. I always kept this idea with me that particles and their interactions were generating a stereographic projection of spacetime. Now I don't feel so alone. Thank you for your work, Curt.
@SomzChauds Yes, I did. It was indeed exactly the train of thought I have had for the last 10 years of pondering this subject. It's not an original perspective and i'm not claiming to originate the idea of an emergent spacetime. For it was the idea that was brought to mind that was followed through with the typing of, and the posting of my comment. Tell me, if I didn't keep the idea with me that particle interactions created a "stereographic projection of spacetime" (my quote). Then how did I type the comment, presenting my idea in accordance with many others, that the interactions present an emerging spacetime are similar to the idea of these interactions being synonymous to higher dimensional analogies creating a "stereographic projection" of the dimensions we currently inhabit? In short, if I really didn't do it, as you sarcastically and ignorantly claim. Then how exactly did I actually do it? I eagerly wait for breathtaking and riveting response.
Wow! I just got through the entire episode with prof Avishalohm after going back to it in my watchlist intermittently. What an amazing interview Curt! You two just about figured it all out in one podcast 🎉 I’m all in. Causality is the fundamental path to the truth of nature, and spacetime is emergent. And that he says ‘Don’t take my word for anything, read the papers I’ve published the formalism and I’m working on the rest.” This is exactly the approach one would expect from a physicist who is really onto something. 10 out of 10! PLEASE HAVE HIM BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN!
Beautiful conversation, thank you. At 47 minutes in, Curt describes a "selection of different pasts" rather than selecting a new future. I find this similar to the nature of time in a Tarot reading. Fascinating!
This collection of conversations continues to transcend expectations. The podcast stands unrivaled in its intellectual depth and philosophical rigor. It is unmatched in the depth and exhaustive comprehensiveness with which it explores subjects. I can easily imagine Curt's TOE is becoming an emerging as a beacon for distinguished scientists, philosophers, and profound thinkers, far beyond a mere podcast for enthusiasts or students.
@@user-cg3tx8zv1h I believe you’re right I heard Eric Weinstein bring up Curt’s show on trigonometry he basically said it was groundbreaking that Curt got a famous string theory scientist to admit string theory has failed. Curt is going to make peer review pointless instead of writing a paper to some journal that is meaningless. You go on Theory’s of everything give your best presentation and get asked insanely good questions by curt to explore the theory. Then have great discussions in the comment section by a bunch of really smart people ( I not including myself in that group) it’s really exciting to watch the whole thing even for a layman like myself that’s just curious
Did my dissertation on weak measurements for undergrad just recently and learned a lot from the likes of Aharanov, Vaidman etc.. Changed a lot of my basic perceptions of time and qm when reading around the topic.
So very interesting. My raja yoga meditation teacher, 60 years ago, taught us there are different kinds of time. Linear, simultaneously time, nesting time, frame time or time with components that can be rearranged in different orders, circular time, different flows of time. Physically we are equipped for linear time at present, but we can play with others.
Thanks Curt, this new physics fits perfectly into my philosophy (complex idealism). Elitzur’s nothingness is Henri Bergson's duration. I call it imaginary flow. Spacetime is created out of imaginary flow by exponentiation. It creates a vibrating universe, just like Euler’s formula. Now has a thickness in time where time vibrates both directions at all frequencies. The speed of light and mass are complex features, they flow. So negative mass is a negative flow. Distance is an experience. Driving forces are vibrating time. Discrete space is a placeholder. These are just some overlaps that I found during your talk. I have to study his new physics more, but I already really resonate with it.
I get where you are coming from. I tend to lean into an interpretation as an analog universe. All concepts of a discrete point of measurement is inherently fuzzy, and the more you zoom the more fuzzy any concept of a point becomes. So, now at a microscopic or quantum level becomes somewhat fuzzy like a vibration or oscillation around and imaginary point.
@46:45 Curt’s bit here about bepasting was incredible. I love that he or someone thought of it. I agree with him that it’s ridiculous but definitely a “wtf that’s amazing someone thought of that” moment for me.
Was looking for this comment, it is interesting to think that a choice of "free will" takes a finite infinitesimally small amount of time and is not instantaneous, thus changing the world line that emerges from the defined "now" by going back to an infinitesimally small time in the past. The diverging world lines don't build up separate realities but there's a real world line and a "could have been" world line. Pardon my non-technical terminology. Regardless, I think the later is a termination in spacetime and does exist in the past. The termination happens by some phenomenon that terminated the world line by affecting the past. Bepasting is something that always struck me and gave me a sense of free will that I liked rather than the block universe picture- which is quite depressing tbh.
I found this incredibly entertaining and a really great episode of TOE. Though I am not uncomfortable with block time it is refreshing and I fully support studying the idea and having the model of present time and the now being fundamental. Great episode Curt !❤️🔥👊🏻
To be clear, the experiment referred to in this talk which is said to demonstrate retro causation and support for this proposal is not an actual experiment. It is a proposal for an experiment: a thought experiment linked in the preface above. When Professor Elitzur says "don't believe me, believe the experiment" he is referring to an experiment he has proposed, not the results of an experiment that has been done.
So…it is a premise upon which an experiment may be based…not an experiment nor a developed theory based upon a series of experiments. Interesting but not validated…yet.
Oh, I see! He's saying someone should conduct this experiment and once that happens then believe those results and don't just take his theories as fact. @@RwwNov48
No, in fact in the paper he is asking us to read when he says "don't believe me, believe the experiment" they talk about an actual experiment performed by two Japanese physicists (Okamoto and Takeuchi) that seemed to match his predictions. You can find the link in the description.
No, Kant did not claim that any kind of thought needs space and time, only thoughts that have representations :) He also introduced transcendental time where he actually proposed that the knitting together of empirical time is happening; interestingly enough pretty similar to fake pasts and fake futures overlaps. And, William Rowan Hamilton wrote an essay "Algebra as the science of pure time", where he was very inspired by Kant, and where he also philosophically explained the ideas behind pairs of conjugate variables. Which seems very relevant to these ideas :))
It's good to hear new perspectives rather than re hashed Ideas with Mind Boggling Equations. Something New will give us the Answers, not the Stuff we already know !
This is just great, thanks for this podcast. Not only does the somehow yet clumsy theory seem intuitively true, but also has wild experiments that clumsily prove it. As a concept, and maybe as a way to try to offer an explanation for the wave-particle problem some seem to have: the interactions between the particles (a large enough number of particles), having the same scope/direction, act as a larger mass, just like soccer fans do in the so called "mexican wave", the wave may be/or start symmetrical (giving similar possibilities in several directions, just like a ripple), but at some point, get concerted in one direction (the true possibility). Last but not least, it raises some philosophical questions about our direction and scope as human beings.
Higher density of matter will have more frequent wave function collapses resulting in spacetime Becoming at different rates. Therefore time dilation in gravity wells? Living this video
I have been following quantum physics for years, not a pro. Just curious. But this makes alot more sense.There is awnsers to alot of my questions and also new questions and experiments to further. Thank you
Wonderful guest and discussion. I wonder how Abshalom’s model handles the Higgs - if I’m understanding his hypothesis correctly, the non-zero scalar potential (and the associated Higgs self-interactions(?) and graviton exchange) would create spacetime without the need for (before) any fermions or gauge boson exchange. Hopefully we’ll learn more during Part 2!
40:00 Here are ways to disprove many worlds (only the Schrödinger equation): 1. Find a collapse process (for example like Penrose proposes - there are experiments going on so far many worlds was not falsified). 2. Find patterns between experimental outcomes that should be random (some guiding wave theories suggest that) in many worlds. 3. Find a violation of linearity in the evolution of states (that's essentially where many worlds comes from). ...
The violations of linearity probably are only relevant where continuous functions change so fast that second order polynomials are not negligible in the limiting processes.
Beautiful stuff! Inspiring and empowering to know we are creating our future in every moments choice. Also very in line with how life feels intuitively.
Time is the myth we need to tell ourselves to keep track of various rates of change of spatially displaced momentum values of relative vectors and therefore lies implicitly in imaginary references to the local world conditions of the measurements we base our experiential and experimental models on
This professor reminds me of the genius professor in the movie "pi", he even has an aquarium with fish in the background. He must be the inspiration for the role in the movie.
I’m absolutely positive that your guest is correct @ 9:18 - 9:40 . Why? Because for decades I’ve been trying to prove mine wrong. And although I have never heard anyone else voice one like it, it is so beautiful, simple, mathematically sound and so obvious that there must the hundreds who have stumbled across it.
1:55:30 I get what he's saying. When the worlds split due to a choice, it not only creates a new world with a live or dead cat, for example, but it also creates the history (the past) of that cat.
Superb and mind-bendingly fascinating. What an enjoyable feast of ideas. "Now" seems to have no dimension, it has zero "thickness" and zero duration. Any "now", to all extents, has no physical or temporal existence, it is the interface between being (the past) and becoming (the future). "Now" is not a "slice" of time but a plane of interaction where the past (memory) and future (anticipation) meet in continuous change. Heraclitus said you cannot step into the same river twice." Reality is always in motion, always becoming, never static. "Now" seems to be a place we hold only in our minds.
Have a question for a follow-on conversation with Avshalom Elitzur regarding mirage particles. In the experiment (timestamp 1:21:54) the set-up of the experiment leads to the mirage particles. I would expect mirage particles to "occur" outside of that particular experiment alone. I would also expect mirage particles to occur "more frequently" when more particles are in proximity of each other (and opposite; take a cubic space of a light second with only a handful of particles - not a lot of interaction happening there). That makes me think about the first instances of the cosmos, the era of "inflation". Do those mirage particles contribute to the curving (and stretching) of space time? If yes and if there are more mirage particles in "dense" spaces than the most effect they could have was at the cosmic dawn. Perhaps we don't need an inflaton or inflation field or perhaps one can construct those things as a tool to represent mirage particles.
👏👏👏 So beautiful video. Thank you professor. With luck and more power to you. Walking the path of knowledge and what a beautiful path it is. Thank you Doctor. Hoping for more videos. Dear doctor, I would be greatful if you would make great videos in the fields of philosophy of science, scientific philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and computer science with the same seriousness as the great physics videos. I wish you success. With thanks.
Pardon my presumptiveness, but when you have two particles being repelled, their distance relative to each other will be much smaller than that of between either one individually and the edge of the universe. Even if more space is being created between the two particles, it seems like there would be far more being created on the other side of each. Just as headphone cords are statistically more likely to get tangled because there are more tangled configurations than neat ones, massive bodies close to each other attract because there are more 'possible' futures where the paths don't collide than there are where they do, and thus more space is created around the particles than between them. This would also hold true regardless of whether other particles were present between the two in question, as there would be a net 'attractive' force the closer together they are, as the 'pressure' of the universe being created around them pushes them inward. To me, it feels like he's describing the mechanism of spacetime expansion with the same stroke he uses to explain gravity, and the mechanism puts me in mind of other things like Unruh radiation and the Casimir effect. I think it makes perfect sense to me, it's beautiful, and I can see how Mach's principle influenced this idea. I do think I see an issue though. Wouldn't gravity be stronger at small scales rather than weaker? Perhaps there is a connection with the strong force that weakens the effect?
Referring to the topic discussed around 1:53 in the video: rather than suggesting that unmeasured spacetime part is not exist and only forms as a result of measurement, it might be more functional and consistent to propose that unmeasured spacetime is exist remains inaccessible to us as long as it is not measured. So no holes in the spacetime.Furthermore, we could add that the region of "nothingness" where spacetime supposedly emerges is definitively inaccessible and unknowable from within spacetime itself
Proton coherence is what can affect time both back and forth in time. At a black hole where they should decohere “decay”, time becomes stretched to never allow this to happen. This is all I was able to come up with.
@ about 27 minutes in, Dr. Elitzur asks Curt if he is not uncomfortable with the idea of past, present, and future coexisting simultaneously, as Einstein theorized. Curt takes this to mean an emotional or visceral reaction, but that was not the question. Elitzur's claim is that the notion offends the intellect at a fundamental level. Just as Gödel held that true assumptions are those that literally force themselves upon the intellect as being true, false assumptions can have the very opposite effect. I believe this is what Dr. Elizur is implying. Time divides our consciousness into past, present, and future; however, the intricacies of time are inconceivable, and the truth values are not binary. Thus while it is possible to perceive time outside of the "now," it does not follow that time travel is possible.
I simply took his question to be: wasn't Curt as offended as he was about the lack of free will in Einstein's theory. That the very notion that how you will do the dishes tomorrow may be predetermined was so offensive as to be utterly lacking in any credibility... For me, it's the opposite, but Dr Elitzer's reaction is not an uncommon one for some people to have.
Incredible presentation. Seems to be doubling down on the question of "what makes an observer?". At a time when the universe was young, it presumably had no observers at all, so were all worldlines extending all possibilities across all particles? Did the Big Bang actually happen after "an observer" came to be? May explain inflation (filling in an enormous past all at once)? May also explain why reality exists at all - so long as there is no observer, all possibilities extend infinitely forward, but once it creates a path to an observer, that path becomes real. Like lightning seeking shortest resistance path. Really need to nail down the definition of an observer now!! I think this may have crossover to Wolfram's Ruliad. The universe is trying everything all at once, but once it finds a way to make an observer, only then does it put ink to paper. Would explain the fine tuning problem too. Jeez. Need to process.
Unitarity ✨️🤔 Oneness? Synchronicity? I've never heard of it. He started off well, then got bogged down in particle physics. Let's hear him out. 2:11:15 in all, quite good and interesting. He presents a description of how matter condenses into existence. Yesterday is a memory, tomorrow is a proposition. Today is the reality 😊
And like the event horizon, it has no dimension, it has zero "thickness" The now, to all extent, has no physical or temporal existence it is the interface between being and becoming. "Now" is not a slice but a point of interaction where the past (memory) and future (anticipation) meet in continuous change. as Heraclitus said you cannot step into the same river twice." Reality is always in motion, always becoming, never static.
As a student of philosophy, especially of phenomenology and particularly of Heidegger's "Being and TIME" (ahem), Elitzur is one of the few physicists who speak to my understanding of the real. Experience is foundational, ideas are derivative. If you reverse that ontology, calamity ensues. Elitzur maintains the proper order.
This sounds similar to Ruth Kastner's Transactional Theory of QM - It would be interesting to have a discussion about the differences...any chance of getting her onto your podcast?
The explanation after 52:44 was extremely confusing to me because the graphics ended up not matching with what was said. It seemed it was edited and the conversation jumped quickly without full explanation. I tried rewinding a few times to try and figure it out and couldn't. I got that the e+/e- crossed each other and I've seen the bomb experiment and was OK up until 52:40. Why would that fact that the electron didn't hit the positron mean the electron had to go to the right? It could have just missed both the first and second positrons and still gone to the left? I needed you to drop back and try to explain how you understood things after that because it was really confusing. At 55:10, he says both the left and the right are encountering 2 mirrors. But there are only 3 mirrors in the graphic, the right only has one mirror.
Amazing vlog. The idea that space and matter is created moment to moment resonates with me. I was wondering if the term "universe" can be thought of as a causal boundary that varies for each particle. Do two particles separated by 1 meter have unique boundaries of "their" universe also separated by 1 meter?
Altering the past: We have three events A, B, C in succession. A is the experimenter setting up initial conditions, the result of which is B. The experimenter takes note and registers B. Then the experimenter sets the apparati to C, the result of which is to erase B, as if B had never occurred. IS THAT IT ?? Am I interpreting correctly ?
This idea is not new and in essence can be found in Anixamander and his theory of Apeiron. Anaximander’s apeiron is similar to ideas in modern cosmology, such as the principle of emergence, where complexity arises from simple, undefined origins.
Negative mass implies antigravity. In statistical phenomena, such as radioactive decay, how do individual nuclei manage to maintain a constant half-life, or are they all entangled, or in a double slit demonstration, how the distribution of the interference bands remain proportional and symmetrical. I see virtual particle pairs travelling in both directions of time constrained to the wavefunction everywhere now.
I have long ago concluded that the regeneration rate of existence is 1H/1H second which also explains why the speed of light and time are limited to same. This only applies to everything limited by space/time. I have no knowledge of any limits external to space/time. Infinity is by nature infinite without limit. Thanks for this very thoughtful video.
I know that the present does not exist. We have the past and we have the future but the present is the future that immediately turns to be past. So the present is like a screen or passage with no width or length whatsoever. We call the present to a period of time that in it the very near future and the very near past - are meeting. But present it is not. Because the present had passed already. Thank You
I am a layman so these may be some horrendous question; going off what he said around @1:59:00, How would the emergence of "now" and creation of spacetime apply to objects that already Occupy spacetime? Like the sun already exist, so presumably its past "now" and the spacetime it occupies would have already emerged. What happens to the new spacetime that is being created by the present "now"? Is that a possible explanation for expansion?
I love this idea that wavefunction create spacetime from an emergent process, I’ve always had these types of ideas in the back of my head as it makes the most sense. (I’m not a huge fan of infinities and realize when you run into these there’s a more fundamental thing at play) In Special and General Relativity In Einstein’s relativity, space and time are unified into spacetime. Sequential nature of time: Time is still sequential locally (within a given frame of reference), meaning it provides a causal ordering of events. However, the concept of simultaneity becomes relative different observers may disagree on the sequence of events. Space and time are coupled: The way they interact depends on motion and gravitational effects. For example, time dilation or length contraction can alter how we perceive the “sequence” of time and space. So time is just a relative phenomenon of the “now” as time is always relative to the observers frame of reference. Just as a little thought experiment, imagine someone being a distance of light years from the moment you were born (in my case 21 years) this persons “now” would be observing me as just being born. So in a sense space is always extending from a local sequential “now” as now is a different frame of time for every distant observer. The only way they can determine my current age is by calculating the relative spatial distance. Even then, they would not be able to observe the present version of me in a spatial sense, as they would only see the light emitted from my past. (Point here is that the same goes for very small scales, just unnoticeable to local observers) As an example: Within the framework of Special Relativity for objects traveling at the speed of light (photons), time does not progress at all relative to any observer and due to this if a photon had a perspective then it would experience no changes in space (the entire journey from emission to absorption would appear to happen instantaneously. The universe would be compressed along the direction of motion to a single point), this means that space would essentially be a never changing construct to a photon. A photon emitted from a distant star billions of years ago “experiences” no passage of time on its journey and experiences no distance as length contraction contracts the perceived distance as seen from an outside observer. To clarify further: The contraction happens in the direction of motion, relative to the observer. The Lorenz transformations reveal that no single inertial frame is “absolute.” Measurements of time and space are relative to the observer’s frame.
17:49 It's as if the further you look in the direction counter to the trajectory of a Barn approaching the speed of light, the further into its future you see. Or the other way around. Space contraction is an illusion resulting from time dilation and motion.
When a wavefunction' force carrying photons precede spacetime, and at its decoherence/ collapse finite/local spacetime is generated out of it, thus its photons' invariable speed explained by spacetime emerging out of its collapse, means spacetime is an emergent property. As gravity/mass is related to speed, ie mass at lightspeed is infinite - a black hole, gravity might as well be emerging out of the wavefunction collapse, right? I mean, at lightspeed the wavefunctions of a mass might collapse differently, thus spacetime emerges differently, relative to how wavefunctions of a mass at rest would collapse.
There are some comments on Kant, little ones. Kant spoke of time as a kind of "form of inwardness". It is amazing that we can be so deceived by our "spontaneous metaphysics", because "time", as the terrible abstraction that we often imagine it to be... time... only depends on every single "experience" in "life" of each one of us. No one has ever seen time, of course (and any "law"). It is, so to speak, our sense of experience, felt from its 'inner aspect'.
The means in which we understand are also the limits to our understanding: a paradoxical cipher for the arrogant mind. There are other means. However, those with prideful motives will run the wheel into insanity. Imagine a cipher that responds to your state of being. "The universe" is playing games with us, so we may become humble to receive what we would like to know.
I once watched an explanation of a thought experiment where the question was asked, "How much matter can we count?" Or, "Can you count to infinity?" Something like that. Forgive me, I am an amateur. The experiment was illustrated by placing blocks of matter in a horizontal stack. As you count an increment of matter you add a block. ◽️◽️◽️◽️...◽️ Because "matter cannot be created or destroyed," and/or "there is a finite amount of matter in the universe," you will eventually run out of blocks. Therefore, the only way to continue counting, to count to infinity, is to move a block from the beginning of the stack to the end. This creates a paradox. My comment was this: *You haven't counted anything. You just created a clock* 🕑
The experiment in the paper Avshalom shares, "Nonlocal Position Changes of a Photon Revealed by Quantum Routers," is done with photons, so what does he mean by "negative mass"? Photons don't have mass. Maybe this has been discussed in the 453 Comments below, but that was too many to read in detail.
I wonder if Avshalom follows Wolframs work or has even talked to him. Some of the parts of causality and writing of space and time sounds quite familiar to WP.
This is why learning to program is such an imperative regardless of AI doing it better, calculators do math better but we shouldn’t avoid math because of it. The block universe or causal universe Elitzur is describing is essentially the same description one can give to any software program. I wonder if he codes to be honest because if he did it would help inform his intuition.
Not really. The block universe essentially dictates that your program is just a movie that plays through without any interaction (determinism). Actually it worse than that, every screen already exist in the Z order and your consciousness just moves through the different bodies of you on each layer. > There is interest in Computer simulation theory and the Holographic universe that are closer to your description :) Ol mate Wolfram does a lot on those concepts :)
1. as space -time is created we observe distances expanding in all directions - the distance between objects in a room and indeed ourselves are also expanding although the rate is less than in space because we are influenced by the gravity of the earth 2. space-time of the previous moment dissolves (almost) instantly
Beautiful discussion on the ledge of knowing. Crystalization of Time via nested periodic rhythms and scales or noise is what matters about time and the relative clock rates based on massivity or "PerMassivity" as I have coined a term to help describe the resistance of gravitational wave movements... That said Time is a tool to describe crystalization of nested biological and real rhythmic nature of all physical reality. Relative phase angles between crystalized living temporal songulairities (aka life forms / Broch Membrane I just named after myself that encapsulates crystalized temporal life forms and living realities. Time is a tool for our economic engines and society in general. The next ZenoVolution of sorts is to realize an entire realm exists within and above the concept of time as a super and sub harmonics that create new triplets of concepts of relativism phase angle, amplitude, cyclic life duration/span. Humanity has popularized Relativistic thinking to our own pitfalls at this point - I suspect to bring us to this moment of a new super/subharmonic of scientific foundations to emerge. Remember I'm nothing more than a Fool Trolling the most cutting edge topics. No more no less. Enjoy my LARP - or is it? Who knows.
Generally In agreement seen as a example in microtonal scales in music, dividing a band into new coherence and decoherence functions. I have many similar theories yet my terminology is different. Would you be interested in exchanging emails to discuss them and where we can take It. ? I have some interesting insights I think you would enjoy
The puzzle of 'making an observation' appears to remain. We come down to WHAT IS an observation, does anything exist before it is measured, etc. Who or what is entitled to make an observation? Does it require, as some would propose, a conscious entity? Or is it a matter, as Penrose claims, that gravity forces the wave function to collapse, stopping uncertainty from getting out of hand, such that, by analogy, there are sounds in a forest, even if no one is there to hear them.
My money is also on Penrose. There’s some aspect of gravity, or more likely some feature of the fundamental spacetime object, that causes collapse in one temporal direction. The collapsing is the present.
Thanks to people like those two, we are out of caves. No matter if the theory is right or totally wrong, it was pleasure to listen to it, although I have zero idea what they talk about. 😅
48:54 "Becoming" is the entire history of the Universe focused in Now. This is also what free will or choice are: because everything there is is just the way it is, the only choice we can possibly make is just this one and no other - regardless of what this one choice is.
SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe
My take on the flow of time is uniqueish.
If there truly are zillions of everything in the past and future and present, where does the energy come from to maintain the zillions of futures before they happen?
That is why it makes no sense to think time is actually manipulatable to take us into the past or future. Where does the energy come from to maintain the past and create the future a zillion times every femtosecond or at plank scale?
That seems like an awful lot of wasted energy doesn't it, if time is actually snapshots that can be manipulated on a universal scale?
NO going forward, except on paper and at speed but not enough energy to have pre-created future "frames" to pass time through. No going backwards because there is not energy to do it.
Nobody addresses the energy needed to "run" a universe it seems in their little snap shot analogues. Calculate the energy required to maintain a femtosecond record of the future universe before they happen. You can't. Because it's an illusion based on a concept that we manipulate through the analogue of math.
Trying to describe corporeal reality IS NOT the actual reality. It's an attempt to understand and explain using other mean than, say, holding Sol in your hands and studying it with magic machines. When the experiment data, understanding and manipulation of the corporeal object all line up? We get a real thing with real understanding and the control that comes with it.
Electric generator for example. WE have those down pat!
The "past" is only corporeal in objects that remain. A process can be run back and forward and are a description of a concept, not corporeal reality actually letting you hit rewind and fast forward in time.
Beware the analogue taking the place of the real corporeal object in your understanding of a concept. And 4 dimensions is basic as the universe runs moment by moment because the energy needed can only by accessed in THE PRESENT. That is my notion anyway.
That the past and future have no energy to maintain themselves and the present is the energy state. The conservation of energy means we live in a boring low state present with the energy required for only the present because the energy required to maintain a past or future in infinite.
Space time is emerging because when something comes into existence it needs ROOM to be in. The more things that quantumly become? The more room those "things" needs so space is created as well as time because the thing is in the present.
Negative mass is closer to what dark energy is (even though the planck masses there are higher), a mass where (when it's angular quanta masses are bigger than the angular masses that surround it, it's a inverse angular quanta number growth replaced with larger singular quanta growth, this is also quantized growth because the singular mass must displace hbar angular lengths, instead of with regular mass growth by multiples (hbar*n) for mass energy density scaling, which in reality is a division of angular quanta (hbar*n is number of angular quanta radial density scaling (in reality it's a division), and hbar/n single angular quanta displacement of surrounding quanta by radial extent (is a increase of a single angular quantum size))). The single angular quanta circumference grows by displacement of the smaller more uniform quanta around it, instead of increasing angular quanta density with traditional mass scaling. (hbar/n) radius, or (hbar*n) radius, quantized power scaling of a angular quantum vortex or multiple divisions of them by radial displacement. Speed contracts with length by same proportion but doesn't effect time, time dilates with curvature degree quantum vortex alignment, which is a second order vector reflection resistance (effecting the speed more than the length, dilating the time rate of atomic clocks).
It doesn't matter if you endorse many worlds or not... We have observational proofs for this given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and the observations of our three-dimensional universe which is perceived as flat which means our three-dimensional universe potentiality is being stacked infinitely into a four-dimensional manifold biggest infinite amount of the previous dimension get stack in any size version of the next... I will say this a thousand times over if necessary but in order to create a theory of everything you must know the fundamental state of magnetism... If you don't know that magnetism is opposite spinning toroidal flows with one side spinning inward towards the center and one spinning outward in the opposite direction on the other side then you don't understand fundamental magnetism and if you don't understand magnetism at its most fundamental level then you can never create an accurate theory of Everything...
Again another major problem with our disconnect with quantum mechanics and general relativity is the fact that we live in a imperfect world and we have imperfect mathematical structures... With our current mathematical system we have pushed the problem of curvature in our mathematics out towards Infinity... If we follow the Terrence Howard style system and we follow my conversion functions that I made for this system then we can have a near-perfect mathematical structure that will help the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity... For instance if we do a plus one on the multiplication side and a minus one on the division side we maintain the same Fibonacci spiral and therefore we have a system that is in lockstep with our current mathematical system except for when approaching down towards zero the mathematical structures become non-linear and have an extreme curve our current mathematical structure pushes this problem out towards Infinity... Because of this we have a disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics... at the most fundamental level we have a mathematical problem that needs to be fixed before we can ever create any theory of Everything or any connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity... X²*X²*X²*•••♾️ < X³ this mathematical equation holds true because ² is a square function and a square is two-dimensional an infinite amount of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence so therefore X³ is always greater than infinite amounts of X² multiplied or however else because ³ is a cubed function and is three-dimensional with depth...
I think he fundamentally misunderstands time... What time is actually a spatial dimension and we have infinite amounts of three-dimensional universal potentiality branching and stacking on top of each other because ultimately if we were the highest spatial dimension in the third dimension then we would expect the relative state or shape of the universe to be round and this is not what we observed we observe a compressed or flat state or shape of the universe which means that our three-dimensional reality is stacking into a four-dimensional manifold and 4D is the time dimension but to us in the third dimension it seems like it can never move because it is only time but if we were in the fourth dimension it would be a physical dimension... We just can't observe it moving because we are three-dimensional...
I love it when physics catches up with psychedelic experiences.
Always love listening to your podcasts. I’m not a scientist, and I don’t understand much of what is discussed, but I get something out of these every time. I’m amazed at the intelligence of so many creative minds exploring their curiosities and moving humanity along in its evolution. I am filled with gratitude for the beauty of humanities quest for understanding. It’s beautiful!
Kurt, you bring amazing guests but I am realizing the more I watch your podcasts that you are also a phenomenal mind.
Thank you!
He is indeed! But he still recommends The Economist, showing there are limitations in every case.
I am stunned that he said that they detected the mirror being “pulled” instead of being pushed after a particle hit it, thus indicating a negative mass. 😳This is incredible.
@@hectorbacchus it’s insane that it pulls instead of pushing, how? I going to throw you a baseball but when it hits your glove the ball is going to pull the glove off your hand ? What? While at it let’s turn the universe inside out , why not
Negative Mass is Proof of My Theory of Super-Tension, so is a Lasers Shadow. It's Light that Generates Darkness or Outer-Spacetime not the other way around.
Doesn’t that make sense?
When a particle hits a mirror, it can feel like the mirror is being “pulled” rather than pushed due to the way momentum transfer works. If the mirror is free to move, the impact of the particle can cause it to recoil. This happens because the particle’s momentum is transferred to the mirror, and since the mirror is reflecting the particle’s motion, the resulting force on the mirror acts in the opposite direction of the incoming particle’s momentum.
What’s so groundbreaking?
Thanks for pointing that out. ❤❤❤
@@Moedow ground breaking? Oh I don’t know negative mass maybe? Sure on paper doing math it’s perfectly ok to put a dash in front of a number but pick up a baseball with negative mass what the hell does that look and feel like ? And don’t be a ass and say well it’s just a ball that floats up
This is one of the greatest conversations I’ve ever seen.
'Wave functions creating spacetime' had me floored. I always kept this idea with me that particles and their interactions were generating a stereographic projection of spacetime. Now I don't feel so alone. Thank you for your work, Curt.
Yeah, yeah .. sure ya did 😂
@SomzChauds Yes, I did. It was indeed exactly the train of thought I have had for the last 10 years of pondering this subject. It's not an original perspective and i'm not claiming to originate the idea of an emergent spacetime. For it was the idea that was brought to mind that was followed through with the typing of, and the posting of my comment. Tell me, if I didn't keep the idea with me that particle interactions created a "stereographic projection of spacetime" (my quote). Then how did I type the comment, presenting my idea in accordance with many others, that the interactions present an emerging spacetime are similar to the idea of these interactions being synonymous to higher dimensional analogies creating a "stereographic projection" of the dimensions we currently inhabit? In short, if I really didn't do it, as you sarcastically and ignorantly claim. Then how exactly did I actually do it? I eagerly wait for breathtaking and riveting response.
Define SPACETIME) IN IN 10 WORDS OR LESS
Explained please
@ nah, you first.
Wow! I just got through the entire episode with prof Avishalohm after going back to it in my watchlist intermittently. What an amazing interview Curt! You two just about figured it all out in one podcast 🎉 I’m all in. Causality is the fundamental path to the truth of nature, and spacetime is emergent. And that he says ‘Don’t take my word for anything, read the papers I’ve published the formalism and I’m working on the rest.” This is exactly the approach one would expect from a physicist who is really onto something. 10 out of 10! PLEASE HAVE HIM BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN!
the more i dig into this video, the more my brain is twisting.
this is simply mindblowing.
Curt, you create a public forum where these mindsets are set free on each other. With all hubris earned. Rare.
Beautiful conversation, thank you. At 47 minutes in, Curt describes a "selection of different pasts" rather than selecting a new future. I find this similar to the nature of time in a Tarot reading. Fascinating!
This collection of conversations continues to transcend expectations. The podcast stands unrivaled in its intellectual depth and philosophical rigor. It is unmatched in the depth and exhaustive comprehensiveness with which it explores subjects.
I can easily imagine Curt's TOE is becoming an emerging as a beacon for distinguished scientists, philosophers, and profound thinkers, far beyond a mere podcast for enthusiasts or students.
@@user-cg3tx8zv1h I believe you’re right I heard Eric Weinstein bring up Curt’s show on trigonometry he basically said it was groundbreaking that Curt got a famous string theory scientist to admit string theory has failed. Curt is going to make peer review pointless instead of writing a paper to some journal that is meaningless. You go on Theory’s of everything give your best presentation and get asked insanely good questions by curt to explore the theory. Then have great discussions in the comment section by a bunch of really smart people ( I not including myself in that group) it’s really exciting to watch the whole thing even for a layman like myself that’s just curious
Normally I don't comment too early, but I love how Avshalom opens up the conversation. You and your efforts are an inspiration, Curt!
@ 1:44:24 "You told me what I think! I didn't know that this is what I think!" Brilliant...
Cuts reflective listening skills are exceptional :)
One of the best conversations I’ve heard. So inspiring, insightful and what a lovely guy too.
No worries about video quality -- this conversation is so damn interesting I could could listen to it in a rowboat in a snowstorm!
Fantastic Curt! Get this guy on again please.
Did my dissertation on weak measurements for undergrad just recently and learned a lot from the likes of Aharanov, Vaidman etc.. Changed a lot of my basic perceptions of time and qm when reading around the topic.
So very interesting. My raja yoga meditation teacher, 60 years ago, taught us there are different kinds of time. Linear, simultaneously time, nesting time, frame time or time with components that can be rearranged in different orders, circular time, different flows of time. Physically we are equipped for linear time at present, but we can play with others.
Thanks!
What an extremely interesting, engaging & mutually respecting pair. A wonderful discussion.
This is incredible - can’t wait to see where this goes
Danke!
Thank you so much!
Curt’s show is so amazing it never disappoints
This guy is so cool, what a great guest. I love his thoughts on QM, Thanks for the interview Kurt and Elitzur
Loved this conversation! Much food for thought🙏
Never heard of this guy outside of Elitzur-Vaidman bombs, but he is such a talented philosopher!
Thanks Curt, this new physics fits perfectly into my philosophy (complex idealism). Elitzur’s nothingness is Henri Bergson's duration. I call it imaginary flow. Spacetime is created out of imaginary flow by exponentiation. It creates a vibrating universe, just like Euler’s formula. Now has a thickness in time where time vibrates both directions at all frequencies. The speed of light and mass are complex features, they flow. So negative mass is a negative flow. Distance is an experience. Driving forces are vibrating time. Discrete space is a placeholder. These are just some overlaps that I found during your talk. I have to study his new physics more, but I already really resonate with it.
Have you ever written a proof by mathematical induction?
Thanks ChatGpt
I get where you are coming from. I tend to lean into an interpretation as an analog universe. All concepts of a discrete point of measurement is inherently fuzzy, and the more you zoom the more fuzzy any concept of a point becomes.
So, now at a microscopic or quantum level becomes somewhat fuzzy like a vibration or oscillation around and imaginary point.
@46:45 Curt’s bit here about bepasting was incredible. I love that he or someone thought of it. I agree with him that it’s ridiculous but definitely a “wtf that’s amazing someone thought of that” moment for me.
Was looking for this comment, it is interesting to think that a choice of "free will" takes a finite infinitesimally small amount of time and is not instantaneous, thus changing the world line that emerges from the defined "now" by going back to an infinitesimally small time in the past. The diverging world lines don't build up separate realities but there's a real world line and a "could have been" world line. Pardon my non-technical terminology. Regardless, I think the later is a termination in spacetime and does exist in the past. The termination happens by some phenomenon that terminated the world line by affecting the past. Bepasting is something that always struck me and gave me a sense of free will that I liked rather than the block universe picture- which is quite depressing tbh.
I found this incredibly entertaining and a really great episode of TOE. Though I am not uncomfortable with block time it is refreshing and I fully support studying the idea and having the model of present time and the now being fundamental.
Great episode Curt !❤️🔥👊🏻
To be clear, the experiment referred to in this talk which is said to demonstrate retro causation and support for this proposal is not an actual experiment. It is a proposal for an experiment: a thought experiment linked in the preface above. When Professor Elitzur says "don't believe me, believe the experiment" he is referring to an experiment he has proposed, not the results of an experiment that has been done.
Which means???
So…it is a premise upon which an experiment may be based…not an experiment nor a developed theory based upon a series of experiments. Interesting but not validated…yet.
Oh, I see! He's saying someone should conduct this experiment and once that happens then believe those results and don't just take his theories as fact. @@RwwNov48
No, in fact in the paper he is asking us to read when he says "don't believe me, believe the experiment" they talk about an actual experiment performed by two Japanese physicists (Okamoto and Takeuchi) that seemed to match his predictions. You can find the link in the description.
No, Kant did not claim that any kind of thought needs space and time, only thoughts that have representations :) He also introduced transcendental time where he actually proposed that the knitting together of empirical time is happening; interestingly enough pretty similar to fake pasts and fake futures overlaps. And, William Rowan Hamilton wrote an essay "Algebra as the science of pure time", where he was very inspired by Kant, and where he also philosophically explained the ideas behind pairs of conjugate variables. Which seems very relevant to these ideas :))
Thank you for an amazing conversation!
Another incredible banger of an episode!
It's good to hear new perspectives rather than re hashed Ideas with Mind Boggling Equations. Something New will give us the Answers, not the Stuff we already know !
This is just great, thanks for this podcast. Not only does the somehow yet clumsy theory seem intuitively true, but also has wild experiments that clumsily prove it. As a concept, and maybe as a way to try to offer an explanation for the wave-particle problem some seem to have: the interactions between the particles (a large enough number of particles), having the same scope/direction, act as a larger mass, just like soccer fans do in the so called "mexican wave", the wave may be/or start symmetrical (giving similar possibilities in several directions, just like a ripple), but at some point, get concerted in one direction (the true possibility). Last but not least, it raises some philosophical questions about our direction and scope as human beings.
Higher density of matter will have more frequent wave function collapses resulting in spacetime Becoming at different rates. Therefore time dilation in gravity wells?
Living this video
I have been following quantum physics for years, not a pro. Just curious. But this makes alot more sense.There is awnsers to alot of my questions and also new questions and experiments to further. Thank you
Wonderful guest and discussion.
I wonder how Abshalom’s model handles the Higgs - if I’m understanding his hypothesis correctly, the non-zero scalar potential (and the associated Higgs self-interactions(?) and graviton exchange) would create spacetime without the need for (before) any fermions or gauge boson exchange.
Hopefully we’ll learn more during Part 2!
40:00
Here are ways to disprove many worlds (only the Schrödinger equation):
1. Find a collapse process (for example like Penrose proposes - there are experiments going on so far many worlds was not falsified).
2. Find patterns between experimental outcomes that should be random (some guiding wave theories suggest that) in many worlds.
3. Find a violation of linearity in the evolution of states (that's essentially where many worlds comes from).
...
The violations of linearity probably are only relevant where continuous functions change so fast that second order polynomials are not negligible in the limiting processes.
Amazing conversation! This guy is absolutely a genius! Crazy and bold ideas that make sense!!!!
Beautiful stuff! Inspiring and empowering to know we are creating our future in every moments choice. Also very in line with how life feels intuitively.
1:43:29 - what a moment :) this was a great conversation. Thank you.
Time is the myth we need to tell ourselves to keep track of various rates of change of spatially displaced momentum values of relative vectors and therefore lies implicitly in imaginary references to the local world conditions of the measurements we base our experiential and experimental models on
Best podcast and genuine person I have had the joy to listen to in a good while.
This professor reminds me of the genius professor in the movie "pi", he even has an aquarium with fish in the background.
He must be the inspiration for the role in the movie.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film)
I’m absolutely positive that your guest is correct @ 9:18 - 9:40 .
Why?
Because for decades I’ve been trying to prove mine wrong.
And although I have never heard anyone else voice one like it, it is so beautiful, simple, mathematically sound and so obvious that there must the hundreds who have stumbled across it.
Agreed, maybe we have the same idea?
@ LebonezLive I just want out to enough ears at once that it can’t be buried, or squashed. It can’t be forgotten.
1:55:30 I get what he's saying. When the worlds split due to a choice, it not only creates a new world with a live or dead cat, for example, but it also creates the history (the past) of that cat.
Superb and mind-bendingly fascinating. What an enjoyable feast of ideas. "Now" seems to have no dimension, it has zero "thickness" and zero duration. Any "now", to all extents, has no physical or temporal existence, it is the interface between being (the past) and becoming (the future). "Now" is not a "slice" of time but a plane of interaction where the past (memory) and future (anticipation) meet in continuous change. Heraclitus said you cannot step into the same river twice." Reality is always in motion, always becoming, never static. "Now" seems to be a place we hold only in our minds.
I would like to hear more about the Bomb experiment because I'm an interested amateur.
My favorite podcast here so far and that is saying a lot !
Amazing guest and always informative.
Have a question for a follow-on conversation with Avshalom Elitzur regarding mirage particles. In the experiment (timestamp 1:21:54) the set-up of the experiment leads to the mirage particles. I would expect mirage particles to "occur" outside of that particular experiment alone. I would also expect mirage particles to occur "more frequently" when more particles are in proximity of each other (and opposite; take a cubic space of a light second with only a handful of particles - not a lot of interaction happening there). That makes me think about the first instances of the cosmos, the era of "inflation". Do those mirage particles contribute to the curving (and stretching) of space time? If yes and if there are more mirage particles in "dense" spaces than the most effect they could have was at the cosmic dawn. Perhaps we don't need an inflaton or inflation field or perhaps one can construct those things as a tool to represent mirage particles.
👏👏👏
So beautiful video.
Thank you professor. With luck and more power to you. Walking the path of knowledge and what a beautiful path it is.
Thank you Doctor.
Hoping for more videos.
Dear doctor, I would be greatful if you would make great videos in the fields of philosophy of science, scientific philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and computer science with the same seriousness as the great physics videos. I wish you success.
With thanks.
Pardon my presumptiveness, but when you have two particles being repelled, their distance relative to each other will be much smaller than that of between either one individually and the edge of the universe. Even if more space is being created between the two particles, it seems like there would be far more being created on the other side of each. Just as headphone cords are statistically more likely to get tangled because there are more tangled configurations than neat ones, massive bodies close to each other attract because there are more 'possible' futures where the paths don't collide than there are where they do, and thus more space is created around the particles than between them. This would also hold true regardless of whether other particles were present between the two in question, as there would be a net 'attractive' force the closer together they are, as the 'pressure' of the universe being created around them pushes them inward.
To me, it feels like he's describing the mechanism of spacetime expansion with the same stroke he uses to explain gravity, and the mechanism puts me in mind of other things like Unruh radiation and the Casimir effect. I think it makes perfect sense to me, it's beautiful, and I can see how Mach's principle influenced this idea.
I do think I see an issue though. Wouldn't gravity be stronger at small scales rather than weaker? Perhaps there is a connection with the strong force that weakens the effect?
I declared "Time is a wave" in my theologico- philosophical opus "God and Eterrnity" in 2009. Glad to see you boys climbing over the summit!
So interesting - looking forward to part two
Great talk! Thank you, both.
Referring to the topic discussed around 1:53 in the video: rather than suggesting that unmeasured spacetime part is not exist and only forms as a result of measurement, it might be more functional and consistent to propose that unmeasured spacetime is exist remains inaccessible to us as long as it is not measured. So no holes in the spacetime.Furthermore, we could add that the region of "nothingness" where spacetime supposedly emerges is definitively inaccessible and unknowable from within spacetime itself
Proton coherence is what can affect time both back and forth in time. At a black hole where they should decohere “decay”, time becomes stretched to never allow this to happen. This is all I was able to come up with.
Everything is always BLOOMING into existence.
Super fascinating. Evidence like this could reveal the wizard behind the curtain.. keep it up…
@ about 27 minutes in, Dr. Elitzur asks Curt if he is not uncomfortable with the idea of past, present, and future coexisting simultaneously, as Einstein theorized. Curt takes this to mean an emotional or visceral reaction, but that was not the question. Elitzur's claim is that the notion offends the intellect at a fundamental level. Just as Gödel held that true assumptions are those that literally force themselves upon the intellect as being true, false assumptions can have the very opposite effect. I believe this is what Dr. Elizur is implying. Time divides our consciousness into past, present, and future; however, the intricacies of time are inconceivable, and the truth values are not binary. Thus while it is possible to perceive time outside of the "now," it does not follow that time travel is possible.
I simply took his question to be: wasn't Curt as offended as he was about the lack of free will in Einstein's theory. That the very notion that how you will do the dishes tomorrow may be predetermined was so offensive as to be utterly lacking in any credibility... For me, it's the opposite, but Dr Elitzer's reaction is not an uncommon one for some people to have.
@@simesaid You seem to suggest that Eternalism entails Determinism. Do you believe that?
Incredible presentation. Seems to be doubling down on the question of "what makes an observer?". At a time when the universe was young, it presumably had no observers at all, so were all worldlines extending all possibilities across all particles? Did the Big Bang actually happen after "an observer" came to be? May explain inflation (filling in an enormous past all at once)? May also explain why reality exists at all - so long as there is no observer, all possibilities extend infinitely forward, but once it creates a path to an observer, that path becomes real. Like lightning seeking shortest resistance path. Really need to nail down the definition of an observer now!! I think this may have crossover to Wolfram's Ruliad. The universe is trying everything all at once, but once it finds a way to make an observer, only then does it put ink to paper. Would explain the fine tuning problem too. Jeez. Need to process.
Unitarity ✨️🤔 Oneness? Synchronicity?
I've never heard of it.
He started off well, then got bogged down in particle physics. Let's hear him out. 2:11:15 in all, quite good and interesting. He presents a description of how matter condenses into existence. Yesterday is a memory, tomorrow is a proposition. Today is the reality 😊
This was brilliant! Thank you so much for this presentation
The "Now" is an event horizon in/of time.
And like the event horizon, it has no dimension, it has zero "thickness" The now, to all extent, has no physical or temporal existence it is the interface between being and becoming. "Now" is not a slice but a point of interaction where the past (memory) and future (anticipation) meet in continuous change. as Heraclitus said you cannot step into the same river twice." Reality is always in motion, always becoming, never static.
As a student of philosophy, especially of phenomenology and particularly of Heidegger's "Being and TIME" (ahem), Elitzur is one of the few physicists who speak to my understanding of the real. Experience is foundational, ideas are derivative. If you reverse that ontology, calamity ensues. Elitzur maintains the proper order.
Exactly what I thought while listening. Heidegger anticipated all of this.
I am no pro, but I found many correlations with some of my own ideas. Much of what he said has a great deal of merit in my honest opinion.
Ser e tempo, que nome legal para um livro né , mas ele diz algo ou só rumina e rumina?
This sounds similar to Ruth Kastner's Transactional Theory of QM - It would be interesting to have a discussion about the differences...any chance of getting her onto your podcast?
The explanation after 52:44 was extremely confusing to me because the graphics ended up not matching with what was said. It seemed it was edited and the conversation jumped quickly without full explanation. I tried rewinding a few times to try and figure it out and couldn't.
I got that the e+/e- crossed each other and I've seen the bomb experiment and was OK up until 52:40. Why would that fact that the electron didn't hit the positron mean the electron had to go to the right? It could have just missed both the first and second positrons and still gone to the left? I needed you to drop back and try to explain how you understood things after that because it was really confusing. At 55:10, he says both the left and the right are encountering 2 mirrors. But there are only 3 mirrors in the graphic, the right only has one mirror.
Amazing vlog. The idea that space and matter is created moment to moment resonates with me.
I was wondering if the term "universe" can be thought of as a causal boundary that varies for each particle. Do two particles separated by 1 meter have unique boundaries of "their" universe also separated by 1 meter?
Also, wondering if entangled pairs of particles (or negparticles) created at the same moment and place share the same universe boundaries?
Perception, experience, and time are mind dependant....the end of mind is the end of time.
funny that the only philosopher known to physicists is Kant! seems they do not even heard of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel!
Altering the past: We have three events A, B, C in succession.
A is the experimenter setting up initial conditions, the result of which is B.
The experimenter takes note and registers B.
Then the experimenter sets the apparati to C, the result of which is to erase B,
as if B had never occurred. IS THAT IT ?? Am I interpreting correctly ?
Sounds reasonable.
This idea is not new and in essence can be found in Anixamander and his theory of Apeiron. Anaximander’s apeiron is similar to ideas in modern cosmology, such as the principle of emergence, where complexity arises from simple, undefined origins.
Negative mass implies antigravity. In statistical phenomena, such as radioactive decay, how do individual nuclei manage to maintain a constant half-life, or are they all entangled, or in a double slit demonstration, how the distribution of the interference bands remain proportional and symmetrical. I see virtual particle pairs travelling in both directions of time constrained to the wavefunction everywhere now.
I have long ago concluded that the regeneration rate of existence is 1H/1H second which also explains why the speed of light and time are limited to same. This only applies to everything limited by space/time. I have no knowledge of any limits external to space/time. Infinity is by nature infinite without limit. Thanks for this very thoughtful video.
I know that the present does not exist. We have the past and we have the future but the present is the future that immediately turns to be past. So the present is like a screen or passage with no width or length whatsoever. We call the present to a period of time that in it the very near future and the very near past - are meeting. But present it is not. Because the present had passed already.
Thank You
I am a layman so these may be some horrendous question; going off what he said around @1:59:00,
How would the emergence of "now" and creation of spacetime apply to objects that already Occupy spacetime? Like the sun already exist, so presumably its past "now" and the spacetime it occupies would have already emerged. What happens to the new spacetime that is being created by the present "now"? Is that a possible explanation for expansion?
I love this idea that wavefunction create spacetime from an emergent process, I’ve always had these types of ideas in the back of my head as it makes the most sense. (I’m not a huge fan of infinities and realize when you run into these there’s a more fundamental thing at play)
In Special and General Relativity
In Einstein’s relativity, space and time are unified into spacetime.
Sequential nature of time:
Time is still sequential locally (within a given frame of reference), meaning it provides a causal ordering of events. However, the concept of simultaneity becomes relative different observers may disagree on the sequence of events.
Space and time are coupled:
The way they interact depends on motion and gravitational effects. For example, time dilation or length contraction can alter how we perceive the “sequence” of time and space.
So time is just a relative phenomenon of the “now” as time is always relative to the observers frame of reference. Just as a little thought experiment, imagine someone being a distance of light years from the moment you were born (in my case 21 years) this persons “now” would be observing me as just being born. So in a sense space is always extending from a local sequential “now” as now is a different frame of time for every distant observer. The only way they can determine my current age is by calculating the relative spatial distance. Even then, they would not be able to observe the present version of me in a spatial sense, as they would only see the light emitted from my past. (Point here is that the same goes for very small scales, just unnoticeable to local observers)
As an example:
Within the framework of Special Relativity for objects traveling at the speed of light (photons), time does not progress at all relative to any observer and due to this if a photon had a perspective then it would experience no changes in space (the entire journey from emission to absorption would appear to happen instantaneously. The universe would be compressed along the direction of motion to a single point), this means that space would essentially be a never changing construct to a photon.
A photon emitted from a distant star billions of years ago “experiences” no passage of time on its journey and experiences no distance as length contraction contracts the perceived distance as seen from an outside observer.
To clarify further:
The contraction happens in the direction of motion, relative to the observer.
The Lorenz transformations reveal that no single inertial frame is “absolute.” Measurements of time and space are relative to the observer’s frame.
The negative mass particles (with their corresponding partners) that appear when 'fake' past & present ovelap; are these related to vacuum energy?
17:49 It's as if the further you look in the direction counter to the trajectory of a Barn approaching the speed of light, the further into its future you see. Or the other way around.
Space contraction is an illusion resulting from time dilation and motion.
When a wavefunction' force carrying photons precede spacetime, and at its decoherence/ collapse finite/local spacetime is generated out of it, thus its photons' invariable speed explained by spacetime emerging out of its collapse, means spacetime is an emergent property. As gravity/mass is related to speed, ie mass at lightspeed is infinite - a black hole, gravity might as well be emerging out of the wavefunction collapse, right? I mean, at lightspeed the wavefunctions of a mass might collapse differently, thus spacetime emerges differently, relative to how wavefunctions of a mass at rest would collapse.
There are some comments on Kant, little ones.
Kant spoke of time as a kind of "form of inwardness".
It is amazing that we can be so deceived by our "spontaneous metaphysics", because "time", as the terrible abstraction that we often imagine it to be... time... only depends on every single "experience" in "life" of each one of us. No one has ever seen time, of course (and any "law").
It is, so to speak, our sense of experience, felt from its 'inner aspect'.
Thank you, Curt, for this interview. Maybe you can get Ruth Kastner soon.
The means in which we understand are also the limits to our understanding: a paradoxical cipher for the arrogant mind. There are other means. However, those with prideful motives will run the wheel into insanity. Imagine a cipher that responds to your state of being. "The universe" is playing games with us, so we may become humble to receive what we would like to know.
Maybe it's not a game, but a classroom. The universe already knows what you need to find out.
This is ufo tech, interferometer to create negative mass, this guy is cleaver
I once watched an explanation of a thought experiment where the question was asked, "How much matter can we count?" Or, "Can you count to infinity?" Something like that. Forgive me, I am an amateur.
The experiment was illustrated by placing blocks of matter in a horizontal stack. As you count an increment of matter you add a block. ◽️◽️◽️◽️...◽️
Because "matter cannot be created or destroyed," and/or "there is a finite amount of matter in the universe," you will eventually run out of blocks. Therefore, the only way to continue counting, to count to infinity, is to move a block from the beginning of the stack to the end. This creates a paradox.
My comment was this:
*You haven't counted anything. You just created a clock* 🕑
The experiment in the paper Avshalom shares, "Nonlocal Position Changes of a Photon Revealed by Quantum Routers," is done with photons, so what does he mean by "negative mass"? Photons don't have mass. Maybe this has been discussed in the 453 Comments below, but that was too many to read in detail.
I wonder if Avshalom follows Wolframs work or has even talked to him. Some of the parts of causality and writing of space and time sounds quite familiar to WP.
This is why learning to program is such an imperative regardless of AI doing it better, calculators do math better but we shouldn’t avoid math because of it. The block universe or causal universe Elitzur is describing is essentially the same description one can give to any software program. I wonder if he codes to be honest because if he did it would help inform his intuition.
Not really. The block universe essentially dictates that your program is just a movie that plays through without any interaction (determinism). Actually it worse than that, every screen already exist in the Z order and your consciousness just moves through the different bodies of you on each layer.
>
There is interest in Computer simulation theory and the Holographic universe that are closer to your description :)
Ol mate Wolfram does a lot on those concepts :)
1. as space -time is created we observe distances expanding in all directions - the distance between objects in a room and indeed ourselves are also expanding although the rate is less than in space because we are influenced by the gravity of the earth 2. space-time of the previous moment dissolves (almost) instantly
Thankyou professor for just helping prove simulation theory 👍🏻
Beautiful discussion on the ledge of knowing. Crystalization of Time via nested periodic rhythms and scales or noise is what matters about time and the relative clock rates based on massivity or "PerMassivity" as I have coined a term to help describe the resistance of gravitational wave movements...
That said Time is a tool to describe crystalization of nested biological and real rhythmic nature of all physical reality. Relative phase angles between crystalized living temporal songulairities (aka life forms / Broch Membrane I just named after myself that encapsulates crystalized temporal life forms and living realities.
Time is a tool for our economic engines and society in general. The next ZenoVolution of sorts is to realize an entire realm exists within and above the concept of time as a super and sub harmonics that create new triplets of concepts of relativism phase angle, amplitude, cyclic life duration/span.
Humanity has popularized Relativistic thinking to our own pitfalls at this point - I suspect to bring us to this moment of a new super/subharmonic of scientific foundations to emerge.
Remember I'm nothing more than a Fool Trolling the most cutting edge topics. No more no less. Enjoy my LARP - or is it? Who knows.
Generally In agreement seen as a example in microtonal scales in music, dividing a band into new coherence and decoherence functions.
I have many similar theories yet my terminology is different.
Would you be interested in exchanging emails to discuss them and where we can take It. ?
I have some interesting insights I think you would enjoy
The main conjecture here certainly feels very intuitively correct. Occom's razor approved
The puzzle of 'making an observation' appears to remain. We come down to WHAT IS an observation, does anything exist before it is measured, etc. Who or what is entitled to make an observation? Does it require, as some would propose, a conscious entity? Or is it a matter, as Penrose claims, that gravity forces the wave function to collapse, stopping uncertainty from getting out of hand, such that, by analogy, there are sounds in a forest, even if no one is there to hear them.
Yes. Objective reduction is what really generates the arrow of time that everyone says is missing from physics. Penrose for the win
My money is also on Penrose. There’s some aspect of gravity, or more likely some feature of the fundamental spacetime object, that causes collapse in one temporal direction. The collapsing is the present.
I took his interpretation to be that any and every exchange of a photon is an observation. ie interaction and observation are the same.
@@bazstraight8797 who? That’s not what Penrose says…also it’s not consistent with experiments
Thanks to people like those two, we are out of caves.
No matter if the theory is right or totally wrong, it was pleasure to listen to it, although I have zero idea what they talk about. 😅
Great interview! I do not find the link to the quantum oblivion paper in the description, can someone help me please, thank you
arxiv.org/abs/1411.2278 just added it to description. Thank you so much
Very interesting. I look forward to seeing more on this idea.
48:54
"Becoming" is the entire history of the Universe focused in Now.
This is also what free will or choice are: because everything there is is just the way it is, the only choice we can possibly make is just this one and no other - regardless of what this one choice is.
I know nothing about Phisics but I would listen to Elitzor all day long!